Issue 4216: Inconsisten IDL in the Minimum CORBA chapter (issues) Source: University of California, Irvine (Mr. Carlos O'Ryan, nobody) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Section 23.14 of the CORBA/IIOP 2.4.1 specification lists the complete IDL for a minimumCORBA implementation. However, the text in the chapter and the IDL are inconsistent, for example, section 23.4.2 reads: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- The is_a operation is omitted so as not to introduce a requirement either for holding detailed type information in the object reference or for getting type information over the wire. Instead, minimumCORBA relies on design time resolution of type checking issues. The non_existent operation is omitted, because of the design philosophy of making more decisions statically at design time. The create_request operation is omitted, as the Dynamic Invocation Interface is omitted. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 3, 2001: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== X-Authentication-Warning: doc.ece.uci.edu: Host doc.ece.uci.edu [128.195.174.34] claimed to be GLAMDRING Message-ID: <112501c0a446$c303dc50$2daec380@ece.uci.edu> From: "Carlos O'Ryan" To: Subject: Inconsisten IDL in the Minimum CORBA chapter Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:23:51 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: G&P!!D"/e9=UI!!A6=!! Hi, Section 23.14 of the CORBA/IIOP 2.4.1 specification lists the complete IDL for a minimumCORBA implementation. However, the text in the chapter and the IDL are inconsistent, for example, section 23.4.2 reads: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- The is_a operation is omitted so as not to introduce a requirement either for holding detailed type information in the object reference or for getting type information over the wire. Instead, minimumCORBA relies on design time resolution of type checking issues. The non_existent operation is omitted, because of the design philosophy of making more decisions statically at design time. The create_request operation is omitted, as the Dynamic Invocation Interface is omitted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- However, all those operations are listed in section 23.14.1 There are similar problems with all the changes to the interface repository and the Portable Object Adapter, many ORB operations: create_list, shutdown, work_pending, perform_work, create_operation_list, but there may be more of them. -- Carlos O'Ryan (coryan@uci.edu) #include #include // "Speak softly and carry a megawatt laser" Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:14:37 -0500 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Florham Park NJ USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michi Henning Cc: Juergen Boldt , issues@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: Lost issues References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: EbY!!gZed9$$1!!%p&e9 Michi Henning wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Juergen Boldt wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > URL http://cgi.omg.org/issues/issues.html > > contains links to issues which have not been assigned to R/FTFs because of > > a couple of reasons: > > ..to name a few... > > a) The RTF/FTF has expired and should be re-chartered > > b) The RTF/FTF has expired and will never be re-chartered again (several > > reasons why are possible) > > c) I just didn't know what RTF/FTF would be responsible for an issue > > submitted.. > > d) There appear to be no RTFs for most of the CORBAservices > > e) Nobody knew about this issues archive > > > > With your help some of those issues could be resolved (by assigning some of > > those issues to active RTFs/FTFs or by rechartering some of the expired > > RTFs...) > > Here are some proposals: > > Issue 4216: > > Should probably be reassigned to Core RTF? > It should probably go to Realtime CORBA RTF, if there is such, since the mainline Core has precious little knowledge or caring about the motivations for doing whatever is done in Minimum CORBA. The Realtime and Embedded folks are the ones that care deeply about that sort of stuff. Jishnu.